Tag Archives: Daniel Greenfield

the PLO when driven out of Jordan slunk away with their collective tail between their legs, but when they left Lebanon they did so with flags flying and fingers giving the victory sign. Big difference that needs explaining! The difference was caused by the backing against Israel they were being given by Reagan

Daniel Greenfield is a shrill for US Imperialism which hates the Jews and Greenfield is no friend of the Jewish people no matter what image he throws up. The purpose of Greenfield is to block revolutionary socialism and to present the Jewish people with a certain perspective or ideology.

According to this Greenfield ideology the American Imperialist Globalist enemies of the Jews are the friends of the Jews. As a complement to this perspective or ideology is the thing claimed by Greenfield that if these leftists” were defeated Israel would be home and dry!

In short Greenfield says that American Imperialism is the friend of Israel and it alone is its friend. That is a lie. It is a lie that Daniel Greenfield churns out week after week. Consider the record of the person who is often held up as the friend of Israel – not Clinton or Obama – but Reagan. It is deeply embedded inside the Greenfield circles which cover nearly 100 per cent of Zionism (not quite but nearly) that Reagan was really a good ol’ guy ad a clear friend to the Jews.

But he wasn’t! Reagan was no friend to Israel and no friend to the Jews.

Does that mean that the present so called left are not Antisemitic whores. No I am not saying that. I am far from saying that! In fact I continually say the opposite! The left which includes a wide selection of groups calling themselves all kinds of left sounding names are indeed nothing but Antisemitic whores. But I think the US Imperialist Governments are also Antisemitic whores and they have more power as has their state controlled Media Machines. Perhaps Greenfield’s is part of that Whore Media as well! Indeed I think it is!

Greenfield talks in his latest article how “Leftists” backed the “Arab Spring”. Well myself on http://www.4international.me opposed the Arab Spring from the very first. We saw it as the Gateway through which the Islamist Jihadist would ride to power. They did this in country after country and in every one we backed the sitting dictator against this Arab Spring (Islam Jihad) on one basis and only one basis – these dictators like Ben Ali, Gaghbo, Mubarak, Arafat, Assad, were all secular, at least secular in a relative sense, as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood. So to take the Egypt example, for brevity and clarity, we defended Mubarak, opposed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, defended el Sisi, and we still do. I know for a fact that very few groups have such a clear record as this. I am not boasting just pointing out that these positions do actually exist. I consider the positions Greenfield takes up as being not consistent and I could deal with other things in his article. But the main thing I focus on is that Greenfield is a shrill for US Imperialist Power int he world. it is not that everything he says is wrong but that everything he says and does is underpinned by that. This is a serious issue at a time when more and more Jews are seeing that it is necessary to break the ties with US Imperialism, grow closer to the American people, and for the Jewish state to be first and foremost an independent Jewish state.

Consequently I will limit myself to quoting just ONE paragraph from the latest Greenfield article and also provide the url for the reader to view it all:

The left backed the Arab Spring which rewarded the ambitions of Arabist and Islamist activists at the expense of Coptic, African and other minorities. Its great regional obsession is statehood for the Arab Muslims of Israel, (better known by their local Palestinian brand), but has little to say about the Kurds in Turkey or the Azeri in Iran. The million Jewish refugees and the vanishing Christians of the region never come up in conversation. They certainly don’t get their own lefty protest rallies.

This was ALL well covered in the very useful article which Francisco Gil White wrote some time ago. Note in this article that the PLO when driven out of Jordan slunk away with their collective tail between their legs, but when they left Lebanon they did so with flags flying and fingers giving the victory sign. Big difference that needs explaining! The difference was caused by the backing against Israel they were being given by Reagan when they left Lebanon for Tunis.

(start extract from Gil White article here)

1982-1983 [ negative ]

The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis.

____________________________________________________________

Not content with the above, in September 1982, Edgar Bronfman, from his perch as President of the World Jewish Congress, publicly endorsed Ronald Reagan’s plan for Middle East peace. Reagan was using Bronfman as a ‘Jewish diplomat’ to speak for Israel, and American newspapers dutifully carried the headline “Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan.”[69]

But who cares what Bronfman said? He was not a spokesman for the Israeli government. As a matter of fact,

“the [Likud] Israeli government [led by Menachem Begin]…unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative.”[70]

And what was Bronfman endorsing?

“The Camp David peace accords call for an interim, five-year period of autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza during which the final status of the territories is to be negotiated.”[71]

Autonomy leading to final status was code for a peace process leading to a Palestinian state. We have already seen that the US was quite keen to have Yasser Arafat and the PLO terrorists run such a state (see 1977 section). Thus, Reagan’s plan to create a Palestinian state, which Bronfman endorsed, was another American attack on Israel.

Even as US President Ronald Reagan was pressing for a Palestinian state run by the PLO, these terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians from their bases in Lebanon. Above we noted that in 1970 Jordan’s King Hussein had militarily expelled the PLO terrorists from his country.

“Thereafter the PLO shifted its bases to Lebanon and continued its attacks on Israel. The PLO’s relations with the Lebanese were tumultuous, and the organization soon became embroiled in Lebanon’s sectarian disputes and contributed to that country’s eventual slide into civil war.”[72]

This was a repeat of the problems the PLO had earlier caused in Jordan.[73]

Because the PLO was murdering Israeli civilians, Israel invaded Lebanon, and launched a

“campaign that Israel said would wipe out the PLO as a political and military force and open the way for true peace in the Middle East.”[74]

The Israelis very nearly did just that. They failed, however. But not for lack of trying. Rather, what happened is that as Israeli troops got ready to deliver a knockout blow to the PLO, the US intervened to save them. The Washington Post noted the contrast between the PLO’s earlier exit from Jordan, and from Lebanon:

“From Amman [Jordan], the PLO troops left unheralded, in ridicule. From Beirut [Lebanon], they left in a compromise negotiated by the United States, waving their Kalashnikov rifles. Arafat left not in the middle of the night but with an emotional dockside sendoff from the Lebanese prime minister, a French Navy escort and U.S. air cover.”[75]

But why did the US do this? Because the PLO is the US’s pet, and the US meant to use it again as an attack dog (as we shall see). If any further evidence for this ‘master-pet’ relationship were needed, consider that, in Lebanon, the US had been using the PLO as its *guard* dog:

“The Lebanese occupation by Israel caused the Palestinians to have to leave Lebanon eventually…They had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut…There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.” — Vincent Cannistraro, senior intelligence official.[76]

It’s a love affair!

A bit later, a rival Lebanese faction assassinated Bashir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese phalangists. Two days after that, in the resulting chaos, a massacre was committed in Sabra and Shatila, blamed on these now-headless phalangists. Despite the fact that nobody was blaming Israeli soldiers, Ronald Reagan (who was then using the Contra terrorists to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua) launched a ferocious diplomatic attack against Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and his Likud government, claiming Israel was responsible for this. Edgar Bronfman Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress, again provided cover for Reagan by supporting this attack wholeheartedly.[77]

Before closing this section, it is important to note that despite the US rescue of the PLO, Arafat’s eviction from Beirut was a severe blow that essentially defeated the organization. By 1983, the Christian Science Monitor was writing as follows:

“The Palestine Liberation Organization continues, meanwhile, a loss of regional influence that began with Israel’s summer 1982 invasion of Lebanon. As part of the initial cease-fire, Mr. Arafat and the majority of Palestinian guerrillas abandoned their base in Beirut. Since then, a hard-line faction has challenged Arafat’s PLO leadership. Now Arafat’s back is literally against the sea, and his departure from [the northern Lebanese city of] Tripoli seems only a matter of time.”[78a]

Sure enough, two months later, the New York Times reported that:

“Mr. Arafat, who is believed to be in Tunis, is scheduled to meet Monday with Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Shafik al-Wazzan, to discuss his organization’s terms for withdrawing the rest of its guerrilla forces from [Tripoli,] Lebanon.”[78b]

The US did what it could to make sure that the remaining PLO troops would get out of Lebanon safely:

“White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the Reagan administration wished for the ‘unhampered’ withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization troops loyal to Arafat.”[78c]

And the Reagan administration became quite strident about this, in fact.

“The United States said today that it had told Israel that it ‘hopes and expects’ the Shamir Government will halt its military actions around Tripoli and allow Yasir Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization fighters to be evacuated from the city.

…officials said privately that Washington was losing patience with the Israeli tactics that have delayed Mr. Arafat’s withdrawal.”[78d]

At the time, as the same New York Times article explains, President Ronald Reagan’s point man on the Middle East was one Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense in George Bush Jr.’s administration.

“Today, in what State Department officials said was an effort to demonstrate to the Arabs the American desire for good relations with them as well as the Israelis, Donald Rumsfeld, the special Middle East envoy, arrived in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders.

Mr. Rumsfeld is the highest ranking American to visit Iraq since the Reagan Administration took office in 1980.”

What has been reviewed for the years 1982-83 does not suggest in the least that the Reagan administration really intended to have good relations with the Israelis. To confirm that, it suffices to read on and find out what happened in 1985.

From its new base in Tunis, the defeated PLO would find it very difficult to attack Israel, which is why it resorted to such high jinks as taking hostage the Italian ship Achille Lauro in 1985 (see below). The US would therefore make sure to revive the PLO, and eventually bring it to power in the West Bank, where it could once again easily kill innocent Israeli civilians.

The issue in America is not whether it is republican or democrat, the issue is the world economic crisis in the capitalist system (a period of severe world-wide contraction following the post 45 boom) but that neither parties have an answer to this crisis of the capitalist system.

Obama is the most dangerous. We saw his role in that he went to war against Muammar Gadhafi by completely sidestepping Congress, which is AGAINST THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

On the very night of his election Obama was already proceeding to rule with the same strategy, side-stepping Congress. The whole line of the Media and especially the BBC was why are these horrible Republicans of Congress such horrible people and such unreasonable horrible people.

Obama with nothing to lose in his last 4 years is going to rule in this way. It is called Bonapartism and if people do not know what that means they should find out because it is the ante-chamber to Fascism.

Note well. It is not Fascism. It is the preceding period.

In short the choice is Fascism or Socialism, Fascist Revolution or Socialist Revolution.

The American situation is so different to the European because the American Revolution still lives in the principles of the Republican Party.

But Romney did not articulate that nor could he.

The American Republican elite have sold out on the principles of the Great American Constitution which flow from out of the Great American (Bourgeois) revolution. It was very clear that they had sold out when Michelle Bachmann was isolated by this Republican Elite during the campaign because she opposed the support for Hamas in America.

Romney and the Elite not once referred to Obama going to war on Muammar Gadhafi thus side-stepping the Constitution, which states clearly that a President of America must get consent of Congress. Stephens in Benghazi was transferring guns to the Muslim Brotherhood fighting Assad…Note no Congress again! Romney dropped that in Debate 3 following the intervention of Crowley in Debate 2.

This was a step on from Clinton in Yugoslavia. There Clinton created the false red flag operations of Racak and Srebrenica, to frame the Serbs, to create the alliance with the Jihad (Izetbegovic), and to rush Congress behind the war on the Serbs (6 months bombing of Serbia)

But Obama moves again. Obama had moved from Clintobn. No red flag needed. He just dismisses Congress, dismisses the Constitution.

Obama rules without Congress. In a real way Obama rules with Madonna, Pitt and Jolie.

Obama is above the Constitution. He parades his gawky wife and his gawky children and makes his personal life the issue. The feminist traitors to Feminism lap it up.

But Obama is not Hitler. The role of Obama is to open the door to a Hitler American leader.

It will emerge out of the economic crisis. There will be many forces at play. There will certainly be what is not the left, that is those like www.wsws.org who support Obama the Islamist, and who create Antisemitism in everything they do.

And the future Fascism will have as a central component Antisemitism and Anticommunism, because the role of Fascism is to end all opposition, and to make the capitalist crisis survivable for capital. The Republican Party is filled with Anticommunism so Fascism in America will come from there too I am sorry to have to say.

The situation is far more complicated and even more serious than Daniel Greenfieldpresents it.

the analysis which follows by Greenfield is typically shallow. Greenfield like so many of these reject Leon Trotsky and his method of analysis of capitalism. Greenfield ignores the historical crisis in capitalism. Greenfield does not understand the meaning of the phenomenon of Bonapartism and he is utterly opposed to the Trotskyist analysis of Fascism, just as Jabotinsky also was.

In that way Greenfield, and people like Belman on Israpundit whom we mentioned yesterday, actually disarm the Jews, and disarm Israel, in the face of Fascism in the United States. That after all is the essence of the alliance of Obama with the Muslim Brotherhood.

(ANALYSIS FOLLOWS)

Daniel Greenfield, FPM

In this election the Republican Party ran two wholly inoffensive blue state Republicans on a platform of jobs at a time when the economy was everyone’s chief concern and the incumbent had absolutely failed to fix the economy. And they lost.

The Monday — or Wednesday — morning quarterbacks will have a fine time debating what Mitt Romney should have done differently. The red Republicans will say that he should have been more aggressive and should have hit Obama on Benghazi. The blue Republicans will blame a lack of outreach to Latinos. Some will blame Sandy, others will blame Christie and many will point to voter fraud. And they will all have a point, but the makings of this defeat did not happen in the last two weeks; they happened in the last two years.

Mitt Romney won the primaries because he was electable. But, as it turned out, he really wasn’t electable after all. Not when the chief criteria of electability is having no opinion, no point of view and no reason to run for office except to win. Not when the chief criteria of being a Republican presidential nominee is being able to convince people that you’re hardly a Republican at all.

Romney was a star political athlete who had an excellent training regimen and coaching staff. But to win elections, you have to change people’s minds. It’s not enough to try hard or to fight hard; you have to fight for something besides the chance to round the bases. You have to wake people up to a cause.

The Republican comeback did not begin with innocuous candidates; it began with angry protesters in costumes and Gadsden flags marching outside ObamaCare town halls. The 2010 midterm election triumphs were not the work of a timorous establishment, but of a vigorous grassroots opposition. And once the Tea Party movement started the fire, the Republican establishment acted like the Tea Party had sabotaged their comeback and cut the ties with their own grassroots movement. Separated, the Republican grassroots and the Republican Party both withered on the vine.

The stunning 2010 midterm election victories happened because a conservative opposition loudly and vociferously convinced a majority of Americans that ObamaCare would be harmful to them. And then that fantastic engine of change was packed away and replaced with political consultants who were all focused on seizing the center and offending as few people as possible. But you don’t win political battles by being inoffensive. And you don’t win elections by avoiding conflict.

Is it any wonder that the 2012 election played out the way it did?

The Democrats in the Bush years were about as unlikable a party as could ever be conceived of. They were hostile, hateful and obstructionist. They spewed conspiracy theories at the drop of a hat and behaved in a way that would have convinced any reasonable person not to entrust them with a lawnmower, let alone political power. And not only were they rewarded for that by winning Congress, but they also went on to win the White House.

Why? Because dissatisfied people gravitate to an opposition. They don’t gravitate to a loyal opposition. They aren’t inspired by mild-mannered rhetoric, but by those who appear to channel their anger.

When the Republican Party sold out the Tea Party, it sold out its soul, and the only driving energy that it had. And there was nothing to replace it with. The Republican Party stopped being the opposition and became a position that it was willing to reposition to get closer to the center. Mitt Romney embodied that willingness to say anything to win and it is exactly that willingness to say anything to win that the public distrusts.

The elevation of Mitt Romney was the triumph of inoffensiveness. Romney ran an aggressive campaign, but it was a mechanical exercise, a smooth assault by trained professionals paid to spin talking points in dangerous directions. But, what if the voters really wanted a certain amount of offensiveness?

What if they wanted someone who mirrored their anger at being out of work, at having to look at stacks of unpaid bills and at not knowing where their next paycheck was coming from? What if they wanted someone whose anger and distrust of the government echoed their own?

Romney very successfully made the case that he would be a more credible steward of the economy. It was enough to turn out a sizable portion of the electorate, but not enough of it. He tried to be Reagan confronting Carter, but what was remarkable about Reagan, is that he had moments of anger and passion; electric flashes of feeling that stirred his audience and made them believe that he understood their frustrations. That was the source of Reagan’s moral authority and it was entirely lacking in Romney. And without that anger, there is no compelling reason to vote for an opposition party.

The establishment had its chance with Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor was everything that they could possibly want. Moderate, bipartisan and fairly liberal. With his business background, he could make a perfect case for being able to turn the economy around. They had their perfect candidate and their perfect storm and they blew it.

The Republican Party is not going to win elections by being inoffensive. It is not going to win elections by going so far to the center that it no longer stands for anything. It is not going to win elections by throwing away all the reasons that people might have to vote for it. It is not going to win elections by constantly trying to accommodate what it thinks independent voters want, instead of cultivating and growing its base, and using them as the nucleus for an opposition that will change the minds of those independent voters.

The Republican Party has tried playing Mr. Nice Guy. It may be time to get back to being an opposition movement. And the way to do that is by relearning the lessons of the Tea Party movement. The Democratic Party began winning when it embraced the left, instead of running away from it. If the Republican Party wants to win, then it has to embrace the right and learn to get angry again.